Iona > Any deck without removal in the colour they don't name/Karakas, so that's a moot point.
But definitely Rock-type decks should have an advantage if they play a bunch of discard and blowing-crap-up, with Gravehate from the side.
We'll have to wait and see while people reevaluate their sideboard slots. I've started to run my black Painter deck with Jailers in the main, and so far so good against Vengevine :P
-Matt
Quote me on this, the next deck we're going to whine about will be Affinity/Staxx's new evolution.
Remember how broken Mountain>Lackey play was?
Remember how broken CounterTop lock was?
Remember how broken Zoo creatures were?
Remember how broken Merfolk lords were?
I am convinced that WotC is "dumbing" the game because of all the stupid posts they come across on MTG-related forumsOriginally Posted by Kyle
Quoting you on this, but to answer :P
Although these "combos" were strong, most decks playing these "combos" should be based around the techs. Vengevine + SotF just require you to run few vengevine, a basking, a 0cc creature, 4 SotF and green splash. Maybe not as easy as Hulk+Flash instant death, but also possible. Threshold can viably add the combo to itself without much to lose. CB+Top can do that too. Well, it's not that hard to do that, I could think of a Goblins deck using SotF xD
If you fail to explain the reason behind your choice, technically, it's the wrong choice.
Zerk Thread -- Really, fun deck! ^^
I'm sorry to quote you on this but you're the last person who just repeated it. Those decks are pretty strong and are the current pillars of Legacy, but those decks are nowhere near broken.
Lackey is not a degenerate piece of a combo, playing in an eternal format where StP and Bolt are rampant, you don't expect Lackey to live long, it is easily answerable. If you don't kill it first turn, you can still win by sweeping their board or comboing out. Aether Vial is more insane and obviously abused by another tribal deck: Merfolk.
Merfolk lords are not broken. Zoo or burn can handle them. Counterbalance with firespout can. Mass removal. You still have plenty of turns to find an answer.
Tarmogoyf is a strong vanilla beater in Zoo, but obviously not degenerate. Zoo kills turn ~4 consistently and no one is complaining.
Counter-Top's favorable matchup is AnT and gets eaten alive by Merfolk. There are 3cc and 4cc answers to Counterbalance in eternal. If you play a deck with only 0cc, 1cc or 2cc, you are expected to lose against CB-Top lock.
AnT although favored against non-blue aggro decks is kept in check by Counterbalance. Non-blue aggro decks are still able to answer it back with Mindbreak Trap post board.
I don't hate combo decks or decks that win on turns 1-2. In fact I play combo and have AnT and Belcher built. When wizards banned MT, I understand that maybe it's for the best since the meta was starting to shift between AnT or Reanimator only.
Survival does not win on turn 1-3 consistently, but wins at turn 4-5 consistently however and beats the crap out of the rest of the format. The fact is it can win the same turn it drops (4x Vengevine, Necrotic Ooze+Triskelion+Devourer or Gigantomancer, Sharuum combo). It simply dominates and when half of the players retort to playing variations based on a single card, then that's when it becomes a problem.
A lot claimed Ad Nauseam was degenerate, a single copy played on a deck, where the pilot is limited in life points by how much damage was already dealt to him, can lose horribly by flipping lethal 3-4cc cards, not assembling the combo, opponents throwing burn, or counter spells and stifle.
Survival is played as a 4-of, has virtually no draw back and can be tutored. Broken with Intuition. When Survival lands, it's game over.
If Pithing Needle is in your sb, most likely you lost g1. Good luck with landing that Needle or keeping it there against counterspells or Qasali. There's absolutely no reason now not to splash blue for Spell Snare, or black for Extirpate. Even then Natural Order or Jitte cuts you out of the game. My $0.02.
edit: About Affinity, the deck was completely wiped out in the latest SCG Open. I never once believed it was broken. I apologize to those who have faith in that deck. About Staxx, unless they unban Workshop only then will it be a strong contender.
Last edited by Deadweight; 10-19-2010 at 08:55 PM.
Does it really matter if Survival of the Fittest gets banned? Half the people playing it don't know how to pilot it correctly anyways.
Deadweight you got the post all wrong from nameless one. Neither he, nor the posters before him claimed those plays are broken right now, but that once upon time those decks were in same position as V-Survival is now.
Goblins ran rampant years ago. People cried for lackey banning, even worse than now with Vengevines. Ban didn't come, new cards were printed, people adapted with new maindeck and sideboard plans. Then the same situation happened with counter top lock, ad nauseam, and whatnot. To be more precise, in very distant past there were cries to ban survival since it was played in great numbers, but that was covered few posts prior in this topic (turned out it wasn't so great and was underplayed card for years to come after that, until Iona saw printing - and now Vengevines).
Btw, second part of your post is the same kind of logic lots of people are coming up with here to justify that Vengevines can be answered. I'll take some parts of it and show you example:
Survival is not degenerate, playing in an eternal format where Force of will, spell snare, etc are rampant. If it does resolve, you can still kill it by krosan grip, hate out by needle/whatever, or simply... combo out.
Vengevine is a random 4/3 haste for 4 mana if handled correctly. It can be powerfull if played in right kind of deck, but not degenerate if people are prepared for it. Vengevine Survival kills turn 4, and that is not really consistent - its usually turn 5+, yet everyone is complaining
etc... I guess you get my point.
This is mostly true, because Survival is a really hard card to play perfectly, but this isn't a hard deck to play. ATS was a hard deck to play, getting a bunch of Vengevines into Rootwalla Memnite seems pretty easy.
For those who feel as though decks that are very powerful but very skill intensive are more acceptable than powerful decks that involve lots of herfing and derfing...why do you feel that way? Is it because you feel as though the skill intensive decks allow you an opportunity to outplay your opponents, or because you feel as though your opponents have 'earned it' if they are playing a hard deeck, or is there some other reason?
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
The reason for a card to be banned, most of the time, can be found by comparing Legacy power level to Vintage power level.
Vintage usually got bombs that, were they allowed as 4-of, they would crack into matches decided by luck, or the luckiest dice-roll. These cards get restricted.
What is allowed in Vintage and is not allowed in Legacy are the format-breaker cards. Cards that forces other decks to pack loads of solution against a single resource, cards that are either packed or hated by every deck. The hole format runs toward these cards, and if you don't pack or hate them, you are, then, subpar.
That's mainly what is not allowed in Legacy although determining what should or not get banned is a little more complicated. When Hulk-Flash broke the format, it was not dificult to see that Hulk-flash was either packed or hated by every single deck, and decks that couldn't do either consistantly simply got cut. Every deck, by that time, could pack 15 slots of sideboard against Hulk-Flash and have a chance to win, but then, they would be jeopardizing other matchups, possibly matchups able to handle hulk-flash without these 8-15 dedicated sideboard. Being a hateable a combo isn't, thus, enough to determine the ban.
Now, by that time, the discussion around "should flash, hulk or neither be banned" was almost the same as today. Banning Hulk could have fixed the issue, but no other Legacy decks by that time used either. Flash had already been abused before, using Academy Rector, and was now proven to be abusable in other ways. So, banning Flash just seemed the right choice, and so it was.
Looking at the possibilities of hate Vengevine + Survival combo got (Counterspells, Discard, Gravehate, Anti-enchantment, Creature removal), pretty much every deck is able to, and probably already does, pack 4 to 8 hate against it that will also be used against other matches, not jeopardizing thier sideboard options, and some decks can even win against it without hates. That doesn't seem to be a ban scenario. This could be proven wrong if, and probably only if, these hates are proven to be subpar against the combo, as it was against Hulk, in which everyone claimed that grave-hate were already at their sideboard (like these 4-of tormods), but was proven not to solve the problem.
Now, if it get proven that Vengevine + Survival still wins against Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, FoW, Duress (and similar), Krosan Grip (and similar), Qasali Pridemage, Trygon, StP (and similar), Tormod, Relic, Withered Wretch, Faerie Macabre, and so on (I believe there is are solutions in each color, and colorless either), then it will be banned.
If you fail to explain the reason behind your choice, technically, it's the wrong choice.
Zerk Thread -- Really, fun deck! ^^
I know it has been mentioned before, but I was thinking about it some more.
What would be the implications of banning Basking Rottwalla. I realize how horribly odd and perplexing that statement is. However, it would appear that UG survival and WG survival could keep their VVs and survival while the engine that people are complaining about gets hit pretty hard.
Once again, I don't think any action should be taken regarding banning more cards. I am confident the meta will adjust.
This is pretty busted.
So is this.
is that supposed to be a pun?
I thought so too, but tripod doesn't like outside links. He linked to Professor Oak and Bill.
Rules Advisor
Storm combo should bash survival, especially the GW versions. Spell snare is also pretty good against it. Extirpate can be good depending on the build.
Yes, the deck has a nice backup plan of casting vengevines, but that doesn't make it broken, just really good.
I was at the scg open, I saw almost no one even playing storm combo.
The prevalence of the GW survival decks at the past two opens is interesting because it means that instead of trying to beat the UG versions with combo (going faster), people are trying to go "bigger" and beat the UG versions that way.
I'm not sure the metagame will adjust as quickly as it should because storm combo has always been underrepresented both in terms of number of decks played and decks that do well in the scg series. Basically survival madness is a more fun way to do what storm combo could be doing.
Nothing should be banned and people should stop freaking out.
Just wait until the next sets of Scars of Mirrodin gets printed...
I mean who would have thought that Madness will be a broken deck after the printing of Rise of Eldrazi? I even remember the idea of Vengivines being ridiculed on this site, before some dude top-8th with it on Columbus.
I am convinced that WotC is "dumbing" the game because of all the stupid posts they come across on MTG-related forums
One thing I've always loved about Legacy that has not been true of Standard for several years now is the number of different decks one can play--not just the number of archetypes, but the number of feasible ways one can configure an archetype. I don't know if it's so much the skill level required to play as getting to play a bunch of unique and interesting games. I stopped playing Standard regularly in 2008, when Time Spiral rotated, and even then I'd play at FNM every week or at Regionals/States/PTQs and go Faeries/Faeries/Reveillark/Faeries/5c control or Tribal/Tribal/Tribal/Tribal. Compare this to any Legacy tournament you've ever been at--I recently went to a twenty-man tourney in Pittsburgh where eighteen distinct archetypes were represented, and I played against nine distinctly different decks at GP-Colombus.
The strength or weakness of any game is in its replay value, which for many people (including myself) means having a variety of unique experiences bounded by the same set of rules. If one version of one deck is doing too well in too many tournaments, it's disheartening to people who otherwise might enjoy the format. I don't believe Survival of the Fittest has gotten to that point yet, but running Vengevine does pigeonhole the deck to enough of a degree (and does well enough in spite of that predictability) that I'd be inclined to keep an eye on it.
Just my $.02.
Yes, I totally agree with you guys
Let WotC ban Tarmogoyf !!!
When a card is showing up so much in any archetype, that any deck is playing with it or has to cater for it and shows up so many times in tops8, it's worthy of a ban.
It's destroying all deck strategies and totally distort the format. I HATE vanilla creatures
Really well timed, sir.
Love this post.
This, and of course, Force of Will... clearly imbalanced and overpowered
If you fail to explain the reason behind your choice, technically, it's the wrong choice.
Zerk Thread -- Really, fun deck! ^^
It's amazing that a green deck isn't playing Tarmogoyf, is still doing so extremely well. It shows that the new printings have been of such a powerlevel that even in a totally green deck, Tarmogoyf is outclassed for a strategy. That on itself is pretty cool.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote